Re: Off topic:help on enlarger

[Dan Cardish <dcardish@microtec.net>]

At 09:39 PM 27-09-97 +0200, Alexander Koning wrote:
>Eric Welch wrote:
>
>But my all time favorite it the one native to the V35, the 40mm 2.8
>> Focotar. I have prints made with it that are much better than with Rodagon
>> and Schneider APO lenses I've used in rental darkrooms. Not necessarily
>> sharper, mind you - just like Leica's camera lenses. Just different.
>
>[snip]
>
I guess by now most of you who know me are expecting me to play Devil's
Advocate, and I guess I am.  I own an APO Rodagon-N 50/2.8, and use it as
my standard enlarging lens for 35mm negatives.  It is a very good lens, and
I have no regrets in buying it.  However (here we go!), my first lens that
I bought was a used 30 year old Schneider Componon 50/4 (not the S version,
but the original).  It too was/is an excellent lens (I still own it), but I
bought the apo-rodagon expecting even better results.  I could not detect
any differences in my prints.  On the other hand, I routinely use the
rodagon at f5.6 and occasionally at f4 without any loss of quality.  I
could probably use it wide open if I had to.  The Componon would probably
suffer somewhat if I used it at f4 (its widest aperture).  The modern
rodagon has a number of other features (lit scale, preset aperture etc)
that I value as well.

>Unfortunately they (ofcourse) didn't test the Leitz 40 mm f 2.8
>WA-focotar lens. In the near future I like to have my own darkroom. For
>that reason I have to decide whether I should buy the eligble(?), but
>more expensive Leitz Focomat V35 or for example a Durst 605 with a
>Rodenstock Apo-Rodagon 2.8/50. I hope that my dear fellow luggers can
>help me out on this difficult choice.

Eric mentioned comparing his Focotar with lenses in rental darkrooms.  I
can recall bringing my APO-Rodagon into darkroom courses to use in their
enlargers.  The results were terrible, much worse than in my own darkroom.
I concluded that the fault lay with the terrible condition of the school
enlargers (misalignment etc.), rather than the lenses.  Perhaps Eric's
results were due to similar causes.

Dan C.